This is about eliminating “that’s stupid” from our vocabulary. What inspired me to suggest this?

The quote above that I saw on tumblr.

What do I really believe about my ‘eliminating stupid’ idea? Well. Realistically … this suggestion has about as much chance as an ice cube in Hell.

However.

Conceptually … this suggestion has a lot of merit. Especially if you take it out of the external world and think about applying it internally – as in … with yourself.

So.

Let’s take a minute and talk about the internal aspect — the “me, myself & I are stupid” type shit we tell ourselves in our own heads. I would suggest that far too often we think something … and say ‘how could I be so stupid?’

But.

Most times it wasn’t stupid. Most times thinking about something is simply iterative. It gets you from point A to point B … and on and on and … well … you get it. It just gets you … ‘on.’ <as in ‘forward progress’>

If it matters enough for you to have thought about it … well … it really does matter.

And it is not stupid. Value is in the thinking.

Look.

Trying to put a value on an individual thought is not only a slippery slope … but … well … stupid.

Ok.

Better said? … Worthless.

I say that because the Truth is an individual thought can rarely be assessed in a non-contextual way. In and of itself it may look of little value … it may even look stupid <in the moment> but in the grander scheme of things each thought is smartly leading to real thinking <and a real thought>. And real thinking is where individual thoughts can be made or broken. And, frankly, where you – your mind and how you think about yourself – get made or broken.

But suffice it to say … everything matters if it matters to you.

Ok.

But let me go to the external context for a minute. Huh? … How often do we say ‘that’s stupid’ when someone says something?

Alright … try this on for size.

We probably say it much less often than we think it. But does that make it any better?

Regardless.

Let me suggest … we think it a shitload of times.

Even if we are open minded, and being open minded, it is a knee jerk reaction <mentally>.

But.

Here is a Life truth you need to consider before you even think “biy, that’s stupid.”

Someone has chosen to speak a thought.

Someone has ‘braved’ the real world and opened their mind <and soul>.

So.

I would argue <and will> … if it matters … truly matters to that person … it is not stupid.

Additionally.

And we are stupid if we don’t think it matters.

Okay.

Maybe we aren’t stupid but rather displaying a fear or reluctance to make the effort to understand them.

Yup.

Fear they may be right <and we are wrong>.

Reluctance to change what we believe.

Therefore maybe WE are the stupid one.

Anyway … we just need to be more careful, or thoughtful, with regard to ‘that is stupid.’

I often believe this issue occurs because we have a habit of defining ‘smart’ in the wrong way. We judge smart on outcomes … and not process.

Yet.

Things are often not as they seem … people who seem to be doing something smart or stupid … may not be smart nor stupid.

Things, in a grander sense, are often not as they seem.

There is always more & changing information.

There is always more context to be gained.

There is often more to the story than what we initially hear.

So … in order to not be stupid you need to be … well … smart … as in being smart means not avoiding thinking.

Being smart means thinking things through.

Being smart is trying to find the real answer not the first answer.

Being smart means trying to understand what matters and what doesn’t.

Being smart means not jumping to conclusions.

Being smart is thinking “I don’t know” or “I am not sure.”

What’s not being smart? Saying ‘That’s stupid.’ Why? Because “that’s stupid”, more often than not, is typically a reflection, a sign, for stopped thinking.

Yup.

A stop sign for thinking.

Lastly.

If none of that really mattered to you … take a second and think about how the words ‘that is stupid’ taste in your mouth <or mind>.

If they are words you savor … well … you are the stupid one.

Ok.

Maybe you are just an egotistical asshole.

Or worse?

You are being a shithole to yourself <if it is words you say to yourself in your mind>.

If the ‘you are stupid’ words just don’t feel good … or taste very good when spoken?

Good.

And think about it.

In the end.

Everything matters if it matters to you.

And. If you truly believe that?

From here on out … assuming that what someone says, and thinks, matters to them will help you become smarter as you think about what they actually said <and why they said it> rather than simply rejecting it.

Yeah.

Simplistically … believing everything matters may actually make you a better person.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm … so that means an intelligent person isn’t a smart <high IQ> person or one who has reams and reams of knowledge and factoids stored away in their pea-like brains <although I envision it could increase the likelihood of actually being intelligere>.

It actually suggests that the ‘intelligent’ are those who can discriminate fact from fiction, truth from lies, which half of a half-truth is the important half … and I imagine those who can discriminate … even if only between the bad and the worse.

Oh.

And, of course, that means intelligere is founded upon the concept of choice. And not jut the ability to discern the choice but also the character, and fortitude, and smarts … to actually make choices.

In addition … intelligere demands one have the curiosity to have at hand that which is needed to actually create, and have, ‘the among’ available.

Uhm.

The ability to ‘choose among.’

Once again … we seem to face the uncomfortable truth that things are rarely black & white, choices are inherently unclear and a simple “if this then it must be that” linear choice is almost never at hand.

Intelligere is … well … not easy.

Look.

I don’t know that I really have a point to make here today.

I simply found this interesting. It made me think about what I perceive as ‘intelligence’ in people.

I know I had always simply thought people who were smart were intelligent. And, frankly, I didn’t think much beyond that.

But.

Assessing intelligence not just as being smart but rather what you do with those smarts?

If I could earn a salary being a truth seeker I would sign up today. In fact. I believe we need a job like this.

I think we need a job like this because … well … Truth is significantly more elusive than I tend to think we believe. Truth is rarely simple … certainly not as simple as we would like it to be and even more rarely tied to what could be misconstrued as “common sense.” Truth is often complex, nuanced & tinged with contradictions.

And because I believe what I just wrote … I am always wary of those who come out blazing by speaking “the truth.”

Why? Things are rarely black & white. I also imagine I say this because my truth attitude is tempered by the fact I have been called optimistically cynical.

While my incessant curiosity always has me pursuing new & better & different knowledge <which inevitably create unlearning> I guess I question everything upfront. This means I filter thru everything I hear & rarely accept it as “it is what it is,” I imagine this is my cynicism part <or maybe one would hope as I have become older I can judge what to question and what to accept upfront>.

My optimistic side? I always believe great things come of the cynicism filter <rather than use cynicism to drag things down>. Maybe this style of mine insures I feel more confident in what I know versus what I don’t know as well as draws my thoughts & thinking a little more away from opinion & more towards truth, fact & real knowledge.

By the way. I would like to believe more people <and society … and business … in general> would benefit from a filter like that.

Regardless.

I would like to believe I am one of those people who is constantly seeking truth. I may not be, but, it is certainly a good objective to try to attain. And I would welcome anyone on to my truth seeking team <as long as they truly were open to “unlearning to learn”>.

I do know that I believe as long as you are ‘seeking’ … you are being persistently curious … and … well … there are worse things to be.

I do know that I believe we need more persistently curious truth seekers in today’s world.

Anyway.

Truth seeker.

Well.

That is certainly a title I would like to put on a business card. Tough job but, whew, I would do take this job in a second.

The detective will always circle around what he wants, never seeing it whole. We do not go on despite this. We go on because of it.”

—–

Claire DeWitt

==================

<note: this thought piece skews toward learning & teaching our youth but is relevant to all ages & how we learn>

So.

Every once in awhile you find someone has articulated something you have been trying to say so clearly you just shake your head and say “I wish I had written that.”

Ok. Let me note that this happens more than every once in awhile with me … but different post for a different day.

Anyway.

Everyone who knows me knows that overcoming ignorance is my thing <I always hesitate to use the ‘soapbox’ word so it’s ‘thing’ here>.

In fact … I was tempted to call this post “enlightened Ignorance” <because I love contradictions>.

That said … I found a guy <Jim McGee on Future Tense blog> who has actually not only thought about learning & overcoming ignorance as much as I have but has also created some nifty diagrams which better articulate the dynamic between “learning and ignorance” then I ever could <plus … the diagrams look like something I would have scribbled on a piece of paper so maybe that is another reason I like them>.

What Jim did was to articulate this idea of “boundaries of ignorance” and “circles of knowledge” in a really interesting way. The foundational idea is that by expanding the circle of knowledge you are simultaneously expanding the boundaries of ignorance. In other words, the more things you learn, the more things you become aware you don’t know.

By the way … this is just one of the places where I believe people like you and I can make a difference <with this first diagram and young people>.

Oh.

Let me be clear.

By ‘people like you and I’ I mean older people with more experience and a better understanding of how expansive true knowledge can be.

Why do I say this? Because if you think about this circle diagram concept … it means that gaining knowledge can be frustrating.

Frustrating? Frustrating in that every time you learn something … ignorance still lies outside your existing knowledge base. And this translates into a state of being perpetually dissatisfied <or the glass is never completely full with knowledge> which obviously can be either encouraging or discouraging with a person’s attitude to continue learning.

This diagram also makes you think about the role of schools <and do they help or hinder or minimize or maximize>.

Schools fulfill their role in this process by focusing attention on the inside of the circle and keeping youth carefully inside the boundaries. What I mean by that is the credentialing system of education looks backward at what you are supposed to have learned in its testing and measurement of success.

I imagine the good news is that a good school environment helps keep you from falling off the edge into material you are unable to understand or appreciate <and in the process hopefully limiting a type of discouragement>.

In addition.

A huge purpose of schools is to introduce students <of any age> to appropriate vocabulary in a logical order … so you can progressively move on to additional learning <this is the same in business>.

For example … it’s difficult to skip to more complex physics until you have basic physics understanding. Or. It is difficult to read Tolkein if you haven’t mastered Dr. Suess.

Yet.

The danger, or maybe better said, the potential limitations of formal schooling <even when well done> is too much focus on what you already know.

In other words, if a person <or child> isn’t pushed out to the boundaries, opportunities become limited for significant new learning.

This thought gets compounded by the fact today’s schooling tends to overly protect students from failure and, therefore, from opportunities for deeper learning.

Therefore. Learning and attacking ignorance <and the boundaries of ignorance> is a place where parents and outsiders <beyond teachers> can make a HUGE difference.

I do believe as we get older we come to appreciate, or at least understand, the importance of failure in real learning.

This is important learning beyond educational building blocks and assists in ongoing career development activity and personal intellectual growth.

We need to insure children don’t get discouraged with two things:

——–

(1) slow paced learning as they learn necessary foundational elements <they get discouraged because their curiosity never gets sated>

—-

(2) failure to learn everything <they get discouraged because by remaining in the ‘ignorance zone,’ despite having invested energy in knowledge gathering to actually get in that zone, they never feel a satisfaction of ‘something completed’>.

——–

With that thought …. we get to Jim’s second diagram where the circle of knowledge has inconsistent edges/boundaries. Yeah. It is uneven.

When I saw this diagram I thought it perfectly reflected not only how people expand their learning knowledge outside a school construct but also my own personal challenge when it comes to increasing knowledge and ignorance.

The problem I have personally always had … is I run the risk of collecting information book by book and article by article and with each one my point of view slightly sways in the direction of what I read.

I imagine, upon reflection, over time I have gained a better understanding of my own learning flaws and I tend to treat each piece of new learning as simply a breakthrough in my ignorance and I start gathering information around that particular piece of learning to round out my thought and point of views instead of solely being invested in the ‘breakthrough thought.’ In some variation I imagine most people are like this. This would also mean … uhm … there is no such thing as a well-rounded person.

So.

All that said.

Assuming I could actually create a diagram without help from someone who knows how to build diagrams, my personal third diagram would probably be the rounding out of some of the points above.

In other words … the spike is the initial breakthrough which inevitably leads to a curiosity driven rounding out of fuller understanding and knowledge. Beyond that rounding out I would imagine there is an inevitable new ‘spike’ somewhere else assuming I had read or heard something that piqued my curiosity. Therefore, and I believe this is the neatest thought, this is a perpetual process with spikes and rounding out but in the end the circle just keeps getting bigger and bigger. In my mind <and personal motto> … this suggests ‘seek truth’ just expands the mind with no end destination ever truly landed upon.

Anyway.

Jim makes a great point in his blog … you become more expert and informed on certain topics at the expense of others. The well rounded circle that might have characterized the end of classic education system will be replaced with the profile of an expert (or increased passion on a topic) in some particular domain and therefore you will never end up with a perfect circle but rather an ellipse or some wacky trapezoid <or something>.

I would also suggest that, say … at the end of high school, a teen will have the first diagram and just one spike out <I am making a generalization but you get my thought>. Most kids have some passion that they become comfortable with and expand their knowledge to a point that they are pushing the ignorance boundary out on that topic.

Ok.

Before I leave that thought.

I believe every kid is passionate about something. And I believe it is up to us adults to find it <not the kid>. Once again … I do believe we more experienced <older> people have a responsibility here <note: as do more experienced manager in a business organization>.

It is a tricky challenge … but we should be encouraging other “spikes” in the boundary <note: I hesitate to call it rounding out because if you believe this diagram – as I do – we are seeking to look to create the sharp salient effect on the circle and then round out the salient>.

As noted earlier we adults are in a balancing act role of encouraging and managing inevitable discouragement <because of the never ending aspect of curiosity>.

We need to think about this. Really think about this.

While it is a fascinating thought process that if we do not take time to think about we are likely to mismanage.

In the end?

We need to recognize that our smallest actions can make a big impact.

And that is a responsibility.

Regardless.

Do I believe there should be tools, techniques and specific tactics to take advantage of this “boundary of ignorance” and guide ongoing learning?

Shit. I don’t know. I am not an education expert.

I am sure someone can come up with some voodoo technique that gets people to enhance their knowledge base.

For me the success lies within the understanding of the process.

For when people understand these diagrams and this thought process I believe we are on our way to success. For, as I noted with the first diagram, the issue sometimes comes down to discouragement/encouragement. In our current world people are very focused on “attaining a goal” and what this “boundary of ignorance” suggests is you can never attain the goal.

The cheese gets moved every time you get close to getting it.

Maybe the trick is to make learning become visible so you recognize the next step is to further cluster more learning around something that interested you <and encouraging that gathering/clustering>. But. I am not sure how to do that.

So.

Here is what I do know <or believe> from this:

– School systems are built to create a rounded foundational learning and accumulate enough knowledge to “attack” ignorance as you get older.

That is good. And it probably pays for parents and influential people in kid’s lives to understand this. And encourage kids because there is a high risk they will sometimes get frustrated with the basics and want more.

– In general … learning is discouraging <that is a big thought we need to wrap our heads around>.

Until maybe you attain Albert Einstein status on quantum physics you can never reach your goal. Or maybe better said you are always reaching for something and finding out there is something more to reach for. In people’s formative thinking/learning years it is helpful to remember this.

– Personal understanding is important.

I recognized pretty early on my learning challenge. Each book contained a thought that could drive my newest “thinking” or point of view. I discovered a way to deal with it.

Do I still fall into the “tunnel vision learning” trap?

Sure.

Who doesn’t fall in love with a well articulated logical idea on occasion?

Am I trapped for long? Nope.

I know now to seek out additional learning on thoughts to round off the spikes.

– Single topic pushing out versus multiple topics pushing out.

There is no formula.

I know for a fact my own parents were scared shitless that when I picked up a science fiction book, and then another, and then another, that all I was going to read and learn about was that.

But then I would find something else and then that would be my new eternal focus.

Ok.

Eternal until the next interesting factoid smacked me in the head.

Other people push out on multiple topics at the same time.

The only thing I know for sure? Encouragement.

I don’t like the way my own parents encouraged my curiosity <it was a negative approach … “you shouldn’t just read about this .. you know there are other interesting things in the world”> … but, regardless, the intent was good.

Go get more.

More is good.

Okay.

Maybe that’s the bottom line to this thought.

More is good.

More learning begets more enlightened ignorance.

Question everything. Even your own knowledge.

So.

In this case, oddly enough, maybe I am suggesting ignorance is good.

Good in that the more you don’t know makes you want to know more.

Ok.

Maybe it’s the more you know makes you want to know more.

Anyway.

In the end … despite the fact I abhor ignorance & fight ignorance everyday from my little corner of the world … after writing this … well … maybe I should say “Up with ignorance!” because it fosters more learning. Go figure.

I just spoke with one of my favorite people, a good friend, who as I hung up the phone I thought “he is a multiple night success.”

Oh.

We hear a lot about overnight successes … probably too much. Too much <and misguided> because it is more likely that any successful person you know is a … well … multiple night success.

Now.

I am going to talk about a different type of multiple night here. Most times we talk about people who have toiled in one industry, honing their expertise until some point where they hit a tipping point and a window of opportunity at the exact time. Let’s call this version the ‘axis mundi’ of a hard worker.

The version I am speaking of today is more of a ‘not all who wander are lost’ type exploration of some roads … following each with eager feet hoping it would at some point join a ‘larger way.’ This version is more about spending nights searching for “what is it I am meant to do.”

That was my friend.

I say it that way because I may not know a nicer, more well-grounded from a character standpoint, hard working person. But character & working hard does not guarantee that you will advance in some career. I would argue, and have, that Life for many people is more like a ragged diagonal.

You make some good choices and make some bad choices.

You attach yourself to some people who further your progress and some others who don’t end up doing shit.

You sacrifice some passion for some paying of bills.

You take advantage of some opportunities and miss out on some others <we tend to do more of the latter than the former>.

And maybe worse?

The choices are often not particularly clear.

Life choices are more likely to be like the infamous “trolley ethical problem:”

—————

Imagine you are standing beside some tram tracks. In the distance, you spot a runaway trolley hurtling down the tracks towards five workers who cannot hear it coming. Even if they do spot it, they won’t be able to move out of the way in time.

As this disaster looms, you glance down and see a lever connected to the tracks. You realise that if you pull the lever, the tram will be diverted down a second set of tracks away from the five unsuspecting workers.

However, down this side track is one lone worker, just as oblivious as his colleagues.

So, would you pull the lever, leading to one death but saving five?

This is the crux of the classic thought experiment known as the trolley dilemma, developed by philosopher Philippa Foot in 1967 and adapted by Judith Jarvis Thomson in 1985.

—————–

“The Trolley Problem” reminds us that, in fact, in Life there rarely a single correct answer, and all choices have consequences <some good and some bad>.

We have a tendency to perceive Life as a continuous string of days in which we make choices with a clear 360degree vision.

The reality is that string of days is more likely to have long periods of dense fog in which you are attempting to make choices where you can barely see your hand in front of your face.

People who believe success happens overnight are sadly mistaken.

People who believe success is always doing one thing, choosing one path, and sticking to it are sadly mistaken.

People who believe grinding and working away will insure you will not be overlooked <at some point> or not be taken for granted are sadly mistaken.

People who believe if you work hard enough there are no limitations <to progress or your own capabilities> are sadly mistaken.

Suffice it to say … it is slightly naïve to believe if you work hard and be patient … well … it will all work itself out.

Suffice it to say … Life is relatively indifferent to what you want, destiny does not lend you a hand and the universe, in general, is a shitty guide.

Success takes a tremendous amount of effort.

Yeah … the impatient tend to progress faster … but also crash more often.

Success is more often a delicate balance of patience & impatience.

That said.

I have always balked at the “do what you are passionate” career advice. Only because in its simplistic guidance it suggests that your passion is always tied to what you are actually good at. This kind of advice kind of sucks because if you suck at what you are passionate about you are more likely to end up a bitter, slightly angry, poor individual than a successful one.

My suggestion is to do … well … something that is going to sound crappy.

Do what you love as a side project to your day job. Doing what you want as a side project gives you opportunities to not only do something you want to do but it kind of ‘tests the market for what you have to offer.’

Obviously this also gives you some stability in that you are still paying bills.

I would note that this is exactly what my ‘multiple night success’ friend did.

All that said. Within the multiple nights effort there is a less discussed aspect.

Multiple night success more often than not depends on emotionally intelligence or … well … a strongly grounded character.

I couldn’t figure out exactly which of those phrases I wanted here.

The high falutin’ thought is emotional intelligence or emotional IQ … but I think it may be simpler than that.

Character.

Solid moral compass.

Integrity.

A persistent belief in the fact the good within will be able to deflect the majority of the bad Life throws at you.

It may have a tinge of unrealistic expectations but I would argue that the tinge is what colors what could appear to be a bleak landscape that their Life could appear like on occasion.

It also permits you to ground yourself in “I” and not in the eyes of “them.” It permits you so that no matter what other people are thinking or saying about you … well … your self-worth comes from within and your grounding permits you to ignore the noise.

Ok.

Let me try this.

Regardless of what people think of you at any particular moment, one thing is certain — you’re never as good or bad as they say you are. Knowing that your firm grasp of who you are makes it difficult for someone to say or do something that can dent your resilience & belief in character.

=================

“all that is gold does not glitter,

Not all those who wander are lost;

The old that is strong does not wither,

Deep roots are not reached by the frost.”

–

Tolkein

======================

Ok.

Not all those who wander are lost.

We spend gobs of time talking about career success and planning your future and all of that bullshit when the truth is that not everyone knows their “destination” from day one.

While we use that thought most often with our youth, I could argue that a shitload of people at any age takes time to figure out not only what you are good at but what makes you happy <which may not be the same thing> as well as what feeds your life vitality <the shit that makes waking up every morning fun>.

People wander.

Ok.

Not all do … but those who do tend to be some pretty interesting people <not necessarily the most successful … but interesting>.

I often use a clip from the old tv show Felicity to make this point:

<it is called “Ben’s big mom speech … and yes … I am actually using a clip from Felicity to make a point here … but YouTube doesn’t offer the actual clip because of licensing>

————————-

Ben:

“I’d like to think that people take a good look at me before they make up their minds… He’s this guy, he doesn’t know what he wants to be yet, and he doesn’t have a major yet, he’s got his dad as this dark character … has a drinking problem.

I’m not really selling myself here, am I? … Look I understand why you guys needed to see Felicity with someone like Noel… I mean, he’s obviously gonna make it. And probably long before, I mean, I figure out what I ‘m gonna be in my life. But I always remember this one thing my teacher said, which was, all these people she knew they had no idea what they were gonna do with their lives when they were twenty. So, chances are, I’m gonna turn out to be a pretty interesting guy.

—————————

It’s a great message.

The wanderer usually feels like there is something wrong with themselves. And there is an inherent danger in defending yourself in that in doing so you stop seeking an actual destination and revel in the seeming rebellion of wandering.

Regardless.

Wandering doesn’t mean you are lost. You may simply be discovering. And the discovery is needed to make whatever gold you have in you shine.

Time just needs to buff away the dullness a little.

Next.

Part B … “deep roots are not reached by frost.”

Well.

As I have said a bunch of times … “life can be a real motherfucker.” Not only can it be relatively indifferent to what you want it can actually actively make Life a real shitshow on occasion.

That said.

A wanderer needs deep roots just to survive some of the shit Life throws at you.

Deep roots is the shit that matters within.

Your passion.

Your soul.

Your character.

Your beliefs.

The kind of stuff that no matter how much someone may challenge or try to make sound silly … well … they are your deep roots.

Here is the tricky part.

I think deep roots takes time.

And I don’t mean cultural roots or family roots … I mean personal roots.

Unfortunately many of us don’t get deep <healthy> roots until you are older. It seems like life experience creates deep roots.

But.

It’s worth the wait.

Because even in the coldest and darkest of time … deep roots can never be touched by frost <which means they will grow again>.

And that is what has happened with my good friend. His roots have found a home and his paths have joined to meet at some destination which, after many years, is his new success.

Look.

I do not believe that journey is for the faint of heart and I do believe ‘wandering’ takes deep roots, resilience and a good healthy dose that good overcomes bad if you keep believing that.

But I would argue his journey has made his Life interesting … and him more interesting.

Sigh.

What you cannot see around the corner.

That new road.

Or that secret gate.

The unknown.

To me each step in life is driven on by curiosity and the joy of discovery. And then not settling with that discovery but rather pocketing it as a new experience and immediately stepping back out on the road seeking the next gate, door or errand …. ‘pursuing it with eager feet’ as it may be.

I do think it is helpful to remind ourselves that big is more often found in small than anywhere else … that there is always another gate or door … and that even the ‘least’ among us can actually be the ‘most’ for the health of a strong society.

Some people take more time to grow more into who and what you are … and some people need more doors & gates to grow into the place their deep roots belong.

And some people made of gold do not <obviously> glitter … and, yet, they find their personal pot of gold.

Today I discuss mandating standing for the national anthem <as President Donald J Trump appears to be advocating>.

While I will share my views and while I doubt Mr. Trump has ever looked at the Constitution or googled “Supreme Court decisions with regard to enforcing patriotic compulsory routines” I will share what the US Supreme Court HAS said about this:

===================

“To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous, instead of a compulsory routine, is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds.”

——

US Supreme Court 1943

==============================

To be clear.

I stand for the national anthem.

I don’t burn flags.

I believe people should do the former and the latter.

That said.

I could give a shit if people stand, place their hand on their heart or sing along. It’s a ridiculous empty faux act of patriotism to simply do something because <a> you have to or <b> you do it because everyone else is doing it.

I respect the flag and the country but if you truly want to respect those who served, well, try not acting like an asshole to those who have served.

I respect the flag and the country but if you truly want to respect those who served, well, try conducting yourself in ways that make this country look like it’s less full of shitheads and more like a country whose military teaches dignity, honor & integrity.

I respect the flag and the country but if you truly want to respect those who served, well, try and act like we are not at war or our freedom is under attack from some outside enemy and recognize that the only attack we are under are from dickheads like Trump who claim to value freedom and independence but espouse conformity & hollow patriotism.

Beyond all of that, and whatever constitutional freedom of speech stuff you want to attach to this discussion, there is an additional fairly basic business management aspect – building an organizational culture is never about enforced conformity.

===========================

“Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth.”

―

John F. Kennedy

=============

“The opposite of courage in our society is not cowardice, it’s conformity.”

―

Rollo May

================================

Yeah.

I admit.

I hate codes of conduct <in general>.

I have never been a fan of conformity in general … and absolutely hate forced conformity.

I hate dress codes.

I hate office rules.

I hate meeting rules.

Yeah.

I say that tied to the thought of how some people are discussing creating laws, or establishing rules, for standing for the national anthem.

I say that because this entire discussion isn’t just about being patriotic, and being a ‘patriot’… but enforcing conformity or specific behavior.

We try and do that shit in business all the time.

Well.

Leaders who do not understand how to build a strong self-sustaining organizational culture try this shit all the time.

To be clear.

90% of the time, enforced behavior, fails miserably.

What do I mean>?

90% of the time the desired behavior, which you have always forced & enforced, stops when you stop looking and stop enforcing.

At the core of ‘enforced’ is that it isn’t something people want to do, or maybe it isn’t something they naturally inherently do, and they do it because they have to do it.

At the core of ‘enforced’ is failure. People, in general, don’t like to be told to be honest, do things certain way and how to think. Trying to enforce organizational attitudes & behaviors works just as well as forced changes of behavior in personal Life <diets, quitting smoking, chewing on your fingernails, etc> — it does not work

By the way.

Here is the other weird thing about ‘enforced conformity.’

Failure even happens with the shit that <a> people really don’t mind doing and <b> people kind of know is the right thing to do.

It’s just that people do not like to be forced to do things … even things they kind of want to do anyway.

—————————-

Seek to impose your will, and more men will kneel (if they’re permitted), and when they rise, it will be with resentment in their hearts.

Embrace liberty, and more men will rise, and they’ll do so with joy.

I want those players to stand.

I want to see their hands over their hearts.

But I want to see that happen out of love, not fear, and so long as the fear remains, a decision to stand means nothing but an empty victory in a culture war that will tear this nation apart. ———————————

Look.

We would love it in business if everyone did what you wanted them to do.

We would love it if everyone in a society did things the way they were supposed to do.

But you cannot enforce conformity and, in fact, just as the Supreme Court suggested with the national anthem in 1943 … you really do not want to force behavior. You want behavior to come from within the individual and not enforced from ‘without.’

Oh.

This is where the role of “social norms” can come into play.

Different from enforcement, that promotes top-down direction, administration and monitoring, encouraging social norms can spur, and inspire … uhm … conformity.

It is conformity by choice.

It is having the freedom to conform … and choosing to do so.

This is a powerful conformity.

Anyway.

The Supreme Court got it right back in 1943 when a small group of Jehovah’s Witnesses declined to salute the flag. They were patriots but their beliefs wouldn’t allow them to demonstrate reverence for a flag <a symbol>. The Supreme Court rendered its verdict — with words that should be etched into the minds of anyone who truly cares about who and what America is:

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.

Those are the most famous words of Supreme Court case West Virginia v. Barnette, but it is these words which any true patriot, or leader, should ponder:

–—————

Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous, instead of a compulsory routine, is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds.

——————-

In other words, the power of the symbolism & patriotism lies with the choice to honor & dignify the symbolism of a fag & an anthem.

In other words, compelled patriotism … the effort to force a person to say or do what they do not believe … doesn’t touch upon the true spirit of what the country stands for.

In other words, if I have to compel someone to be patriotic, or do acts which imply patriotism, the American Idea isn’t working.

In other words, mandatory patriotism isn’t patriotism at all.

In other words, the government cannot force someone to violate their conscience and they shouldn’t bully private businesses into doing what a government cannot legally dictate.

I will say this over and over and over again until the day I die — the cure for bad speech is better speech, the cure for bad behavior is better behavior and the cure for dealing with any ‘the American ideal (and idea)’ doubts is not bad enforced conformity.

We should inform, educate, and recommend policies, ideas & behavior that improve America but allow its citizens their freedom of choice.

For the best compliance, don’t just enforce the rules, establish the norms.

Yeah.

I am sure some NFL owners will attempt some behavior-shaping constraints <fines, suspensions, etc.>. And they have that right as a business owner managing their own business & culture.

But I will tell them a secret <and I am hoping President Trump, who has never managed a business which demanded building a culture, is listening in> … that will not shape behavior but it will certainly shape attitudes <unfortunately, most likely not the attitudes truly desired>.

Forcing functional behavior is not always the best approach to shaping behavior.

Here is what any business leader who has ever run a business knows:

It takes your own to govern your own.

Not rules of conduct.

Not enforced conformity.

Lastly.

Just to conclude this piece.

Trump the asshat.

He has no fucking clue how to build a company culture. To him culture is having all the women wear their hair the same way, everyone wear a certain type of clothes that appeal to him and wear name tags with the Trump brand on it.

How do I know he has no clue how to build a culture without ‘enforcing conformity’?

The one people skill he has exhibited to date – it seems like Trump has this unique capability of bringing out the worst of people on actually the best of things.

Huh?

By using patriotism and pride in country <good> he encourages … well … wrong thinking, wrong thoughts and wrong behavior.

What he has done is bring out the worst in people who actually believe in a good thing.

What an asshat.

I would remind President Asshat what every god business leader knows about their employees and their culture … both good and evil lies within the hearts of most men (Alexander Solzhenitsyn) .

Most of us have the capacity to do great and good things … uhm … do very bad and evil things.

Leaders have a choice.

Either bring the best of the good out of people or bring the worst of the bad out of people.

You cannot bring out ‘good’ from within through some type of enforcement nor should you be seeking to try to ‘conform’ good.

Good has to be encouraged, not enforced <someone should print that off and put it on Trump’s mirror so he can see it every morning>.

“It’s a fact of modern life that there is disparity and ‘Is it fair or unfair?’ is not a valid question.

It’s just the way it is, and you have to get on with it. People say it’s unfair when they don’t do anything to change their circumstances.”

A rich person <Ipsos interview>

=====================

“Quite a lot of people have done well who want to achieve, and quite a lot of people haven’t done well because they don’t want to achieve.”

A rich person <Ipsos interview>

===================

“She destroyed too many good things in society, and created too many bad ones, then left a social and moral vacuum in which the selfishly rich and unimaginatively fortunate could too easily destroy still more of what they don’t need and can’t see that everyone else does need.”

—-

Emma Darwin

============

Look.

I don’t begrudge the wealth, the uber-rich, their wealth.

But having glanced off of their uberish-richy Hamptons, Palm Springs, Monte Carlo and south Florida world a couple of times in my life I would suggest they live in a fantasy land, an alternative universe, from the rest of us. In this land of theirs they have a view of the world, and the people who do not live in their world, which is … well … kind of warped.

I do feel semi-qualified to share my view on this because while I have certainly had enough wealth to own a nice house, go on nice vacations and not worry about paying bills I have also sat up at night worrying about how the rent would be paid the following month and using credit cards to get through stretches of time.

I thought about this for the first time in a really long time after I read a story about how the wife of the US Treasury Secretary <Steven Mnuchin multi millionaire businessman and Yale graduate> posted a picture on Instagram which she hashtagged all the designer labels she was wearing.

And then some woman, @jennimiller29, replied: “Glad we could pay for your little getaway #deplorable.”

From there another multi-millionaire Trump deplorable slid down into the wretched hole of douchebaggery.

“Aw!!! Did you think this was a personal trip?! Adorable!” Do you think the US govt paid for our honeymoon or personal travel?! Lololol. Have you given more to the economy than me and my husband? Either as an individual earner in taxes OR in self sacrifice to your country?”

While that was just being a lower level asshat … she couldn’t just stop there:

“I’m pretty sure we paid more taxes toward our day ‘trip’ than you did. Pretty sure the amount we sacrifice per year is a lot more than you’d be willing to sacrifice if the choice was yours. [Curled bicep and a face blowing a kiss emojis].”

“Your life looks cute.” Snark alert! <suggesting … how quaint and ‘play the lottery every week’ your life is>

I could point out what a fucking uber rich narcissistic self-adulating pompous grown up rich kid this woman was for lashing out at some ‘less than’ person who dares criticize her … I will not. I will not because we should be clear … we just got a small glimpse of a discussion that happens day in and day out in anyone of the uber rich social circles as they hob nob with each other <kibitzing about the adorable peasants>. She just got busted. And it only happened because these wealthy assholes <people> mostly stay in their cocoon echo chambers and this one’s husband had the audacity to take a public servant position outside the cocoon.

But … on a separate note … is everyone connected to Trump obligated to be a douchebag?

Anyway.

I will absolutely suggest that the majority of us have no clue what the other ‘haves’ <even if they are really have–nots>experience. We live in our own worlds and, in general, have little clue what the lves of people are like in income levels we do not share.

But the privileged wealthy are really out of touch.

This privileged wealthy class looks at accountability in a warped way.

Accountability always seems to be measured by accumulation of wealth and the trappings of wealth.

That is their measuring stick. And in their petty little gilded world it is the only measuring stick. Unfortunately that measurement doesn’t work outside their little world. And all it does is show they didn’t go to the same math class as the rest of the world … well … almost none of the same classes the rest of us went to.

Now.

To get some of my wording right today, while I was fairly sure what ‘wealthy’ <nice word for rich> meant, I wandered into my go-to book on words Hayakawa’s Use the Right Word.

Wealthy:

Affluent, flush, loaded, opulent, prosperous, rich & successful.

These are all possible synonyms.

In fact … rich is not considered a flexible term <unlike wealthy> because it is an either/or word – you are either rich or you are not … seldom is one spoken of as being ‘moderately rich.’ In addition … rich, unlike wealthy, is widely used in extended senses to mean full, pregnant or abundant.

==========

‘… a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.’

—–

Oscar Wilde

===================

And, in fact, rich people are also inflexible. They are more focused on their own goals and desires. Research even shows that they also ignore people a little more <focused more on the trappings, materialistic aspects of their Life>.

“If you have more power and status, you may not have to care as much about what people are thinking and feeling; and also, if you’re in a resource-scarce environment, where things are a little more unpredictable and maybe a little more dangerous, it would be very adaptive to pay attention to others, how they’re feeling and what they’re going to do.”

I found a fantastic one-on-one interview research study conducted by Ipsos where they spoke with … well … rich people <earning $1 million a year to $10 million a year>.

What they discovered was a startling demonstration of ignorance. While they earned a lot of money and may of them made their money managing their people’s money they knew next to nothing about other people’s incomes. When asked to relate themselves to the rest of the population, these high-earners completely misjudged the magnitude of their privilege.

How much, we asked our group, would it take to put someone in the top 10% of earners? They put the figure at £162,000. In fact, in 2007 it was around £39,825, the point at which the top tax band began. Our group found it hard to believe that nine-tenths of the UK’s 32m taxpayers earned less than that. As for the poverty threshold, our lawyers and bankers fixed it at £22,000. But that sum was just under median earnings, which meant they regarded ordinary wages as poverty pay.

While people may haggle over some of the research thoughts the real takeaway should be the rich’s obliviousness to reality outside of their opulent cocoon.

Yeah.

The arrogance of the entitled rich is usually contained within their snake pit cocoon. In their cocoon anyone outside it is ‘poor little people who are quaint and aggravatingly jealous and don’t understand’ and within it is a mosh pit of excessive upmanship. Simplistically anyone outside their cocoon must be a ‘lesser than’ who can never understand what it is like within the cocoon.

They tend to be ‘opulent’ more than prosperous. They imply personal success … regardless of whether they put in the hard work to attain their riches or not … is found in the trappings, the imagery, more than the intangible aspects of character, attitude with regard to work & fair play and kindness beyond ‘donations & charity’.

And they use all their ‘trappings’ as a portrayal of ‘success’ to the rest of the world outside their cocoon. What I mean by that is it is incredibly hard to conceive of a rich person not considered successful by most people even if they have no redeeming value outside of opulence <and, yet, we can conceive of someone being highly successful but not rich>.

Simplistically … most of the hard work rich people do is to work hard at looking rich.

Which leads me to the ‘sacrifice equivalency.”

Whew.

This one is always a little hard to swallow.

Because the rich measure everything by money they measure sacrifice in the same terms. Sacrifice has little to do with self, in and of itself, but rather what was sacrificed from what the materialistic self could have gained.

It is a warped view of sacrifice stripping it of its most redeeming qualities to some naked monetary transactional measurement.

In their snake pit world it is a measuring stick.

In the real world it is a hollow definition of sacrifice.

======

“The excellence of a gift lies in its appropriateness rather than in its value.”

―

Charles Dudley Warner

=======

I say that because if you reread Mrs. Mnuchin’s post I would imagine, if you use the measuring stick I just offered, you would say she was offering a valid well intended response based on her world view. and in doing so she clearly outlined the fact her cocooned world has very little to do with the real world.

I could say I feel sorry for her … but I do not.

I hate that belonging to different social classes means we struggle to relate on a daily basis.

I hate that America’s top one percent of earners is earning 81 times the average of the bottom 50 percent.

I hate that research shows how the wealthy and the working classes really do live in different cultures and, therefore, see the world in different ways.

I hate that research shows, ironically, rich people rated themselves as more empathetic — a “better-than-average effect” — when in reality the opposite was true.

The results “show that people who are higher in socioeconomic status have diminished neural responses to others’ pain. These findings suggest that empathy, at least some early component of it, is reduced among those who are higher in status.”

<Michael Varnum, neuroscientist at Arizona State University, a 2015 study on empathy>

I hate that success & wealth is significantly Life pre-programmed and that general mobility is a myth.

===========

“We now live in a separate economy, we live on a separate level to the vast majority of people in the country. We don’t send our kids to the same schools, we have more choice over schools, we have more choice over health, we have more choice over where we live, we have more choice over where we go on holiday and what we do for our jobs. And we live in a completely different world to the people we live next door to.”

———

a more thoughtful rich person at the end of the Ipsos interview

===============

Look.

Every one of us lives looking at Life thru the lens of what we know. Someone who has only lived in poverty can only see poverty or ‘slightly more’ and someone who has money been uber rich can only see wealth <and what comes with it>. And even those in-between are kind of trapped in what they know.

Shit.

Even I who has wandered between comfortable wealth and ‘holy shit I have no money’ views lowest income differently than someone who has only lived in lower income — I always believe I will not be there forever. I even think the manager who earns $145k a year is more often than not oblivious to the Life choices of their $45k a year employee.

If something is all you have had, and is all you know, then that is what you are going to be in your head.

That said.

All of us know that success in Life can be found by persistent working, never forget to pursue some dreams and being kind & caring while doing it. Unfortunately some of us forget that … but the rich people almost always elevate the second and forget the third.

I tend to believe that we are all born equal but we are not treated equal and not everyone is on an equal playing field. I don’t say that so some people should feel persecuted just as I do say that so some people recognize that they had better, easier opportunities than others.

There is always a way forward incorporating kindness … always … you just have to find it and relentlessly decide to find it. Unfortunately it takes as much work as work itself.

I have to conclude, using the Mrs. Mnuchin public comment, that most rich people just don’t want to put in the necessary work.

I have to conclude most rich people are just douchebags out of touch with what we everyday schmucks deal with.

“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”

―

Leon C. Megginson

=============

“We’ll never survive!”

“Nonsense. You’re only saying that because no one ever has.”

―

The Princess Bride

==============

Ok.

Multiethnic People Forming Circle and Innovation Concept

Business can look a lot like war … well … at least the battles portion. That said … it seems like one could take some lessons from the military at the same time.

Today’s thought is about who you surround yourself with.

Business is rarely, let’s say maybe 90% of the time, not an individual effort but rather a team/group effort.

I dug around in notes I have jotted down and found a thought I had scribbled down, an almost verbatim thought from someone I respect, and consider a good friend, a Christian military veteran who received 12 decorations in 2 tours in Vietnam <including several Purple Hearts>:

“I am fairly sure I served with heathens, homosexuals and a number of others who my faith would consider sinners. I do know that being in the field highlights the flaws & sins of everyone which, in an odd way, brought us together as flawed Marines trying to survive. But, out there, there really was only one line, one distinction: those who were smart enough to help you stay alive and those who were stupid enough to get you killed. Nothing else mattered.”

The main thought?

“Smart enough to help you stay alive and stupid enough to get you killed.”

To be clear.

This doesn’t really mean someone intellectually or educated smart versus some less-than-intellectual “stupid’ person. This is about the ones who have the smarts & savviness to be alert to the things that need to be done, and can do them, to survive versus the ones who can be oblivious to the things that can kill you <and a shitload of faux intellectuals fall into the latter camp>.

That said.

That pretty much summarizes the business world.

Insert “idea” and … well … there you go … “smart enough to help your ideas stay alive and stupid enough to get your ideas killed.”

<I imagine I could also suggest the thought works for getting fired too>

The point is, in business, if you have any desire to do good things you know you will not be able to do it alone and you learn pretty quickly who you want around you … especially when bullets start flying.

You don’t care if they are black, white, yellow, green or any Crayola color you can think of.

You don’t care if they are gay, straight, lesbian, Furrie, zygote or a transgender.

You don’t care if they are Muslim, Jewish, atheist, pray to Zeus, Christian or Buddhist.

All you care about is surrounding yourself with those offering the highest likelihood of survival. You also care about insuring those around you represent the skills and savviness needed for survival.

Look.

Business certainly has aspects of battle and military strategy.

Especially so if you think about ideas and having winning ideas. The metaphor seems appropriate because good ideas, shit … even great ideas, do not “win the day” all on their own. 99% of the time they need to battle their way through a variety of well-placed and ill placed obstacles.

I think I was really lucky that I learned this lesson very early in my career.

I learned by watching others, who had good ideas, champion them alone seeking persona glory … and watching a good idea die.

I learned by championing what I thought were good ideas with the wrong people … and watching a good idea die.

I learned by watching others, who had a good idea and a good team, champion an idea and defend it, fight for it and see it stand at the end … alive & kicking.

My sense is that this learning affected how I hired people when I was a group leader. I wanted people who had ideas and who wanted to champion ideas and who was willing to set aside some personal glory for the sake of insuring the idea didn’t die.

Anyway.

I know many military people but have never been in the military.

I imagine when you are on the battlefield you are standing as close to the one who can shoot the straightest and will shoot when needed … regardless of whether they look like me or not.

I imagine when you are on the battlefield you are more likely to be saying to your fellow soldier … “stay away from Jack, he is one crazy motherfucker and is gonna get us killed” than worrying about whether some person has some quirk, or looks funny or lusts after Little Ponies when they go home at night.

I would suggest that survival, in general, has a nasty habit of eliminating distractions and having you focus on ‘who can do the job.”

I would suggest that if you care about ideas in business that survival of your ideas, in general, has a nasty habit of eliminating distractions and having you end up focusing on “who can do the job.”

I admit.

As a person I don’t get racism, I don’t get xenophobia, I don’t get discrimination, I don’t get any of that stuff. I just think anyone who gets caught up in all that is caught up in some bullshit. And bullshit has no place if you are interested in progress … let alone surviving.

I admit.

As a business person I don’t get racism, I don’t get xenophobia, I don’t get discrimination, I don’t get any of that stuff. I just think anyone who gets caught up in all that is caught up in some bullshit. And bullshit has no place if you are interested in the progress of your ideas … let alone the survival of your ideas.

I admit.

If you want to succeed in business … well … there really is only one line, one distinction: those who are smart enough to help you stay alive and those who are stupid enough to get you killed. Nothing else matters.

“Power concedes nothing without a demand, it never has and it never will.”

—–

Frederick Douglass

=========================

“Next to the assumption of power is the responsibility of relinquishing it.”

—

Benjamin Disraeli

===================

Well.

We don’t talk about power and people often beyond the tripe about how power corrupts people <as I have written … only people can corrupt themselves>.

So let me talk about the dynamics of power in business in a non-corrupting way. What I mean by that is … well … responsibility & authority. Whether anyone really admits it or not once you attain a senior position in a business you have gained power. Now.

This power is most often not embodied in any nefarious way but rather it is simply a reflection of responsibility & authority.

You have power over decisions.

You have power over people.

You have power over funds and their allocation.

You even have power over ideas … which ones die and which ones live.

Most of us do not see this as some all empowering power or even eye it with an authoritarian belief. We do not view it as some “center of power” but rather we see it is actually more like a linear tool <or hammer> selectively used.

Now.

Wielded well … power can look like a central source of authority but ‘wielded well’ is actually a flurry of linear tools, like playing whack-a-mole, applied to establish selective moments of desired behavior and progress <and this flurry actually creates the sense that there is a larger centralized power>.

But here is the thing.

Once you have gained authority you are extremely hesitant to concede the ‘power.’ This hesitancy actually shifts into full-on “hold on with ragged claws” if you have mastered <or you feel like you have mastered it> the ‘useful flurry of power’ in appropriate ways.

Partially I think this is the allure of … well … owning the initiative – or having some power over initiatives. This shouldn’t be undersold. It is exhilarating and … well … powerful. In business while we measure results and report ad nausea the most satisfaction most leaders get is not in measuring parts & pieces but rather the totality of what they do. and once you taste that satifation you have no desire to conceded anything that could keep you from possibly attaining that satiscation again.

Is that holding onto power? Sure. I guess.

But I tend to believe it is more “I know how to do my shit and I want to keep ding that shit” attitude than any ral bad ‘power trip’ type attitude.

================

“Never relinquish the initiative.”

—–

Charles de Gaulle

============

Unfortunately … people on the outside just don’t see it that way.

And it is understandable they may not see it the right way because I believe it was Geoffrey O’Brien who said ‘history unfolds as always in the midst of distraction, misunderstanding, and partially obscured sight-lines.’

That is how the authority version of power works. It unfolds in the midst of distraction and partially obscured sight lines.

That is how authority works. It unfolds in the midst of a flurry of choices, decisions, delegations and doing <all blurry and, yet, creating a sense of central power>.

Regardless of what it is … or what it looks like … once attained we tend to not want to relinquish it – we do not want to concede it.

It must be demanded to be relinquished.

And here is where it gets tricky. Because even if there is a demand to relinquish, and you do have to relinquish <you get fired and have to take a ‘lesser authority job’ or you get demoted or you simply shift jobs with a different authority level> … we hate to concede it.

I mention that because that is one reason why older senior people who decide to take a lower titled job <even with the best intentions and capability to actually ‘do the job’> can struggle or just be a pain in the ass.

It’s not that they truly are a pain in the ass it is simply … well … they have felt the satisfaction of authority and dislike the loss of that authority.

All that said.

Power concedes nothing <unless the power owner is stupid, foolish or arrogant> … but as someone smarter than I said once … it always reveals.

Authority reveals.

And maybe what I am suggesting today is that authority can actually reveal character and ability. And once you have seen what you can do, what you are capable of doing and what you like to do … well … it is not an easy thing to conceded or relinquish.

And, let me be clear, you can actually be good with authority and effective with use of power and can still be demanded to relinquish it.

It is a falsity to suggest that being good at something means you will always be able to do it <or someone will always seek to have you do it>. you can be forced to relinquish authority, even if you are good at it, for a variety of reasons in business <ranging from well-intended to absurd>.

It is natural to want it again if you were demanded to relinquish it.

Anyway.

I say this so that maybe you take a second before you rush to claim someone is ‘power hungry’ or ‘protective of their power’ … and mean it in a bad way. Having authority and enjoying authority and wielding authority well is addictive <or maybe just like having ‘the perfect buzz’>.

Is it wrong to be hungry for that? Whew. Sure doesn’t seem wrong.

I say this so that maybe you take a second before you rush to judge a person who has had a senior role and has decided to assume a position with lesser responsibility & authority because … well … once you have had authority it is really really hard to relinquish it.

While power concedes nothing I would suggest that the feeling of authority used well tends to not want to concede anything.

===========

“Life has many ways of testing a person’s will, either by having nothing happen at all or by having everything happen all at once.”

“Ninety percent of paid work is time-wasting crap. The world gets by on the other ten.”

―

John Derbyshire

We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism

================

Well.

How many times have we sat back and said “I can do that job”?

Now.

To be clear.

I am going to talk about this from a business-to-business perspective and not the corner of the bar-to-‘a job’ perspective. That because from the corner of the bar, after a couple of beers, any of us can do any job better than the person who is currently doing it.

This is an “I have been in the workplace, I feel like I have had some success and … well … shit … I can do that job” perspective.

OK … I am chuckling a little, c’mon, let’s face it, I don’t care who you are and where you have worked you have eyed what another person is doing and thought you could do it. At some point, if you have had some success, all jobs start having some commodity-like characteristics which tease you into believing shifting from one to another just isn’t that difficult.

Ok.

To be fair.

I have never lacked in business confidence. I do not believe there is a business problem that cannot be solved and I also believe <with some realistic pragmatic goggles on> that there is not a problem I cannot solve if I hunker down and get all the information I need. This can make me aggravating to work with on occasion because … well … I make no apologies for “how I may repair things”.

But that shouldn’t be confused with believing I can do any job.

Ok.

Yeah.

I admit.

I am certainly guilty at points in my career where I have certainly thought “I could do that job” over a wide array of responsibilities and unrelated industries.

Note. I rarely thought I could do it better … just that I could do it.

……….. my MBA at Wake Forest experience ………..

I would say that my MBA experience, a great experience with great professors at Wake Forest, encouraged me to think this way. It was a case study program which inherently encouraged thinking skills over black & white discipline skills.

I tend to believe a good MBA program insures you know enough about a specific discipline to be … well … dangerous if you overestimate your own knowledge but effective enough to be able to understand the discipline to apply it in a general management scope.

Now.

In general, I think this attitude, on the positive side, permits you to make the leaps you have to make to jump into new jobs, new responsibilities and new positions.

In general, I think this attitude, on the negative side, can make you overlook some skills other people have as well as … at its worst … can put you in positions in which you will fail in a spectacular fashion.

I imagine as someone gets promoted, as I did, every step up showed me that there was a shitload I didn’t know overall, as well as about the responsibilities of a specific job, but at the same time it also continuously reinforced that I could … well … “do that job.”

Success in business is a double edged sword.

Conversely.

………. what you know versus what you do not know ………

As someone gets promoted they also can see that some people got their jobs not because they necessarily had the experience or skills for the job but simply because they had the appearance they could do the job.

You watched as these people invested gobs of energy trying to “fake it until they actually make it” or, worse, they realized they were in over their heads and invested even more energy simply maintaining a facade of bullshit to hide their hollowness.

I would also note that given your experience on the last thing I just shared that also encourages someone to believe they could … well … “do that job.”

The higher I got and the broader my experiences, my sense of “I cannot really do that job” increased with regard toward … well … the jobs I really shouldn’t do. It didn’t diminish my sense of ability to handle increased responsibility it simply made me more reflective of other skill sets and the reality of certain jobs.

To be clear.

There is a certain group of people who never reach this realization … they tend to be either sociopaths or oblivious narcissists … but they do exist.

Anyway.

My real realization on this topic came when I reached a general management position <and did some consulting>.

It was there that I recognized jobs are like icebergs.

90% of a job you never see until you actually do the job. And to successfully do the part you don’t see needs a couple of things … beyond the obvious ‘I need to be competent with regard to the specific skill itself’ aspect:

Attitude alignment

This attitude goes way beyond the simplistic “I can do the job.”

This attitude is more with regard to what you are actually good at.

As I have stated before I am more a renovator than a builder. That is a mindset. My attitude is just put me in a room with all the puzzle pieces and I can rearrange them, maybe polish off a couple, maybe smooth out some edges that no longer fit well … and put a different puzzle together that works better than the one that exists.

And then there are people who say ‘I envision a puzzle and build the pieces.”

Those are two different attitudes that, certainly, have some overlap but also, certainly, drive a different type of style and ability to succeed in one type of job versus another type of job. I believe many people are successful in their jobs, and new jobs, because they have the proper insight into themselves and position themselves well to take advantage of this insight.

I would also add that a leader who can see within a person’s ‘skill set’ to recognize this attitude will also be the type who can hire incredibly effectively.

Not all leaders and hirers can. some simply see the façade and surface abilities and believe they are easily transferable and … well … hire them believing anyone can do the job if they have that appearance of a type of surface skill set.

The less-than-obvious skill set

… example of under the radar understanding (Juran Institute) …

Each skill, each specialty, has layers to its depth & breadth. Let’s say this is the “art” of the skill <I sometimes refer to it as “the shadow of your skill”>.

When you are a junior person you are demanded day in and day out to craft your pragmatic ‘non-artistic’ skills. You learn how to screw screws into holes efficiently and hammer nails into their proper places effectively.

As you gain seniority you are demanded to start incorporating the art aspects of your craft. I like to explain this as you have to learn to be more of an architect of your department, skill and specialty. By the way … not everyone can do his and not every department head is good at this and it tends to start filtering out those who move on to the next level … general management.

And if you move up even more into general management you are demanded to gain some skills in the “art” of combining all the skills into the overall progress of a company beyond the simplistic “are each department doing their fucking job.”

In general the biggest difference between thinking you can do a job and actually being able to do the job is your less than obvious skill set. For example … I cannot tell you how many times I have sat in a conference room with a CFO who has displayed a skill set that … well … made me think “shit, this company is lucky to have them” not because they knew all the accounting mumbo jumbo but because they knew how to wield account skills in ways that the company benefited beyond accounting.

Pick your C-level title and I would say the same thing.

At the corner of the bar you have no clue whether you have this less than obvious skill set and if you actually have the experience you may only have a sense of whether this skill set exists. This is an intangible, however, 90% of the time this intangible arises from some relevant experience <maybe not within that specific discipline but a discipline nonetheless> … so your experience does matter.

So.

I decided to write about this today because, frankly, we have a president who believes anyone can do any job and keeps hiring people who may be smart <and may not be … because I, frankly, question whether the President is smart> for positions they have no or little qualifications for that position.

I decided to write about this today because, frankly, as a business guy I know you cannot do a job simply because you say “I can do that job” and that experience really does matter and that simply because you believe something … <sigh> … does not make it so.

I will say that I have learned this lesson the hard way and it permits me to be able to call a bullshitter a bullshitter and to be able to point out that some roles & responsibilities dictate at least some relevant experience in order to be effective & efficient.

Just because you think you can “do that job” does not mean you can actually “do that job.” It takes some self-awareness to know that.

The lack of self-awareness has a ripple effect.

In a bar your lack of self-awareness can create a range of responses – some chuckles, out right laughter of disbelief and maybe even some aggravation if it inches into what some of the people actually do sitting at the table.

In a business your lack of self-awareness can create … well … some real business repercussions. Not only may you be out of your depth but you may actually start making some poor hires who are also out of their depth and … well … that kind of shit gathers negative momentum <down the slippery slope of less-than-competent results>.

In business you get fired for that shit.

In a presidency your lack of self-awareness can create some real country repercussions – and we are seeing some of that lack of effectiveness now.